PUC group takes queries to Cal Am

The state Public Utilities Commission ratepayer advocacy organization has questions about the $400million Regional Desalination Project that has been stalled in mediation the past few months. And they're going to California American Water for the answers.

In a formal request submitted Monday, Max Gomberg, the PUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates project coordinator, asked Cal Am to provide answers to more than a dozen questions related to the status of the mediation and the desalination project.

Cal Am has until Wednesday to respond.

The project is backed by Cal Am, the Marina Coast Water District and the county Water Resources Agency and is designed to provide water for Peninsula customers facing a state-ordered cutback in pumping from the Carmel River.

The project has been stalled and the partners agreed to enter mediation to negotiate a way forward after conflict of interest allegations involving former county water board member Steve Collins.

Diana Brooks, the ratepayer group's water division supervisor, said the organization is simply trying to find out what is going on with the project, noting that ratepayer officials aren't offered any details from mediation including any possible or proposed changes to the project.

"There's just a lot of uncertainty right now," Brooks said. "We're trying to stay ahead of the curve."

Cal Am's Catherine Bowie said company officials are reviewing the request and planning to respond.

Gomberg said the request was prompted by a quarterly project status report from Cal Am presented on Dec. 9 when company representatives told DRA officials it couldn't discuss any aspect of the mediation, including how long it would continue, citing the confidentiality agreement among the project partners.

"The most important issue is what's coming out of this mediation and when, and would that go back to the (commission)," Gomberg said.

Sources have suggested the partners are considering minimal changes to the project agreements as part of a plan to move the project forward. Both public agency partners would be asked to reauthorize the agreements, but the PUC would not.

"Whether Cal Am of its own accord would bring any changes to the commission is an open question," he said.

The data request includes a question about whether Cal Am has analyzed the impact on its customers of the project delays, as well as the cost of related investigations by the District Attorney's Office and the state Fair Political Practices Commission, and whether Cal Am expects to charge its customers for those costs.

The ratepayers group also noted Cal Am's discussion about potential water supply alternatives at an October forum, and asks if the company has identified a preferred alternative that is workable if the regional project is abandoned.

Cal Am presented a study by RBF Consulting of potential water supply alternatives at the forum, while acknowledging the possibility the desal project might be altered or replaced.

Cal Am has since requested clarification from the PUC that it has the authority to proceed with much of its share of the project facilities even if the rest of the proposal doesn't proceed. The company's reasoning is that the Cal Am-only facilities would also be necessary for any of the potential alternative projects.

Both the ratepayers organization and Marina Coast have opposed the bid, with the former arguing for a review of the Cal Am-only portion of the project because they would likely change under an alternative proposal, and the latter arguing that the project agreements are legally binding and can't be challenged so the proposal should proceed in its entirety.

The ratepayers organization also asks if Cal Am or its public agency partners have briefed "local agencies and officials on proposals to modify" the project agreements that were developed during mediation, and Gomberg noted reports that the Peninsula mayors were already discussing a possible joint powers authority.

And the ratepayers organization asks if Cal Am agrees with Marina Coast's stated position that the project agreements are "not void or voidable," and whether the mediation is open-ended or has an end date, and requests an updated project timeline based on a Dec.31 mediation completion date.